Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Childcare Bill

David Amess: Due to a printing error, amendments Nos. 71 and 72 have been printed at the start of today’s amendment paper, although they were debated on Tuesday afternoon. I apologise for the slight mistake.

Clause 3 - Specific duties of local authority in relation to early childhood services

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 3, line 9, after ‘persons’, insert
‘and voluntary and professional bodies’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 193, in page 3, line 10, at end insert—
‘(d)young children’.

Tim Loughton: This is a probing amendment and has been grouped with a Liberal Democrat amendment that deals with a rather different subject, but we shall touch on that at the same time.
The clause includes a list of people with whom an English local authority must engage when it is drawing up and implementing its child care provision plans. We have no objection to that at all and we are particularly pleased with the reference to “parents and prospective parents”. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) will greet the inclusion of that as well; it is a subject he may wish to speak about later. The clause also refers to the need to consult early years providers and, equally importantly, it states that the private and voluntary independent sectors should be involved. I am pleased that they are mentioned because they are an important part of the child care provision that we are trying to improve.
The clause goes on to use the fairly catch-all term:
“other persons engaged in activities which may improve the well-being of young children in their area.”
That refers only to people, so we have tabled a probing amendment that refers to voluntary and professional bodies. It is not clear from the explanatory notes whether they would be included automatically. I am sure that they should be and that the Minister intends for them to be included, but it would be useful to clarify the matter during the debate.
A great many voluntary organisations and charities involved with children have done a lot of work in this area and lobbied hard for much of what is in the Bill. They will be an essential part of local decision making and consultation by ensuring that what local  authorities are facilitating is appropriate and sufficient. There are also professional and trade bodies representing various independent nurseries; all sorts of other organisations have come together into lobby groups to lobby on the provisions. It is right that those groups should be given a role in what will not be an easy task—the new provision of child care—and it is essential that local authorities are left in no doubt that they should be consulted on an equal basis to the others explicitly listed in the clause. The amendment is a probing one, and I am hopeful that the Minister will say that those groups are automatically included under the various technical definitions used. It will be helpful for her to say that and send out a strong signal on the matter.
I have a good deal of sympathy with amendment No. 193, in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), which seeks to add young children to the list as an integral part of the consultation process. Just because a child is young, it does not mean that we can pat them on the head and ignore them.
The National Children’s Bureau has done some interesting work and produced interesting guidance on exactly how we can consult and take account of the views, wishes and preferences of young and very young children. They can be observed in different environments. When a nursery is being built or when a property is being adapted to be a nursery, it is essential to observe how children act in their environment. If the environment is wrong in terms of doors and windows, nooks and crannies, and places where they can play comfortably and be safe, their development and success at that nursery could be impaired. There are a number of ways in which to take on board the views of young children without requiring them to write an essay or to fill in a survey form for the local authority.
Another point, which is not pedantic, is that when we discussed the 2004 Children Bill the Government recognised the importance of properly consulting young children as part of the exercise of setting up the various structures in the legislation. The new children’s commissioner made that a key part of his mandate. Not only was he interviewed by young children, which was apparently one of the more gruelling parts of his selection process, he regularly consults and without a second thought includes children in the various processes that he is dealing with. It would be useful if that could be put in the Bill because it would send a clear signal to local authorities that they should do that automatically. That would greatly benefit the process and add to the quality of the outcomes.
We support the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady, as well as our amendment No. 72.

Annette Brooke: I want to reciprocate the support of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I agree with the principles of amendment No. 72. I am not sure about the drafting, but the hon. Gentleman has outlined the people and groups that  need to be fully involved. It would be comforting to those groups to state in the Bill that they will be involved throughout.
On amendment No. 193, I was heartened by the rebuff from the Minister on Tuesday in so far as I understand that under clause 3(4)
“An English local authority must take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement in the making and implementation of arrangements under this section”.
I was assured that that included listening to parents as well as implementation. I am therefore encouraged that inserting paragraph (d), which would include listening to young children, into the list would be totally appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the pioneering work by the National Children’s Bureau and others, and I also referred to that at an earlier sitting. I am pleased that the Government have been so supportive of that work. However, to have a commitment to listen to the views of young children has yet to be enshrined in law and what better place to start than the Childcare Bill? This is an opportunity to be pioneering.
The Early Childhood Forum’s response to the consultation on the 10-year child care strategy states:
“In particular there is disappointment that the ethos of listening to children, which was prevalent in the Every Child Matters document, is not mentioned nearly enough to warrant recognition of the importance it has on the quality of service provision and the well being of children. Nor will this document be a catalyst for changing the attitudes towards listening to our youngest children. It would be a shame to miss the ideal opportunity to cement that commitment to listening to children from birth about the services they use.”
Listening to young children is a foundation for quality early childhood practice. In fact, it is a way of spreading best practice between local authorities and providers because the interaction would enhance the service and introduce all the practices that we will have, perhaps in regulations, when we know more about the early foundations stage.
It is an amendment that we can put forward confidently, because the additional duty of listening to young children is unlikely to be an added cost, for once. It is part of the process of improving the work force and raising quality. There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence showing how quality has been improved, and I want to refer to a paper that I was given by Investors in Children.
Mooney and Blackburn sought children’s views to identify some quality indicators for effective early years practice and environments that were used to inform the Government’s Investors in Children quality assurance scheme endorsement. Among the views expressed, it was suggested that child care settings should offer opportunities to be with friends as well as outdoor play space, refreshments, fair rules—I think that children are good at equality when they talk about what is fair and what is not fair—and caring and interested adults who listen. How often do we hear “Nobody is listening to me”? It was also suggested that child care settings should offer a safe environment—I think that children are good judges of that—and so on. The paper contains a great deal of good practice, and I offer the Minister this pioneering opportunity to agree to amendment No. 193.

Justine Greening: Perhaps the Minister can provide some clarification on this brief point when she responds to my hon. Friend.
Subsection (2) refers to the duty of local authorities to identify parents or prospective parents. I take it that that means biological prospective parents rather than people who are thinking of having children. I also note that clause 11(3) says:
“Subsequent childcare assessments must be prepared at intervals not exceeding three years.”
As parents are prospective parents for no more than nine months, I wonder whether there is a slight contradiction there that should be tidied up or clarified by the Minister. To fulfil their obligations, local authorities are likely to have to do inspections and assessments more frequently than every three years.

David Amess: Order. The Committee was delighted to listen to the hon. Lady, but may I gently tell her that what she said was not relevant to the amendments that we are debating; it is a point for clause stand part. I am sure that the Minister will know how to deal with the points that she made.

Beverley Hughes: We have heard that amendment No. 72 would insert a specific reference to voluntary bodies into the duty on local authorities in subsection (4)(c). Before I reply, it might be helpful, given Tuesday’s debate, if I recap on the overall purpose of the opening group of clauses.
As the Committee appreciates, clauses 1 to 5 relate to the outcomes duty, but, in practice, their combined effect is to give Sure Start services statutory underpinning, with statutory guidance explaining how the new duties are to be achieved through the children’s centre way of working. To achieve the maximum effectiveness of services to improve children’s life chances in the way that we discussed on Tuesday, clause 3 sets out the essential characteristics of those early childhood services. They must be delivered in an integrated way to facilitate access and maximise the benefits to service users, they must include a proactive outreach approach and they must involve parents in the planning and provision of services. These services are the ones specified in clause 2—early years provision, social services, such as family support, information services provided by local authorities and relevant services provided by the national health service and Jobcentre Plus. Local authorities will be able to achieve that child-focused service delivery only by working with their partners to implement the duties as set out in clause 4.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole wants to ensure that local authorities include providers from the private and voluntary sectors in the planning and delivery of those services. Those sectors play a vital role in the provision of early childhood services, and I agree that it is important that planning builds on and maximises the potential of existing services. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham acknowledged, that is why  clause 3(4)(b) will give local authorities a duty to involve private and voluntary providers of early years provision.
Further, the duty in subsection (3)(c), on which the amendment focuses, is broadly drawn to cover everyone else who can contribute to improving the well-being of young children and to reducing inequalities. It places a wide responsibility on local authorities and their partners to involve other people and organisations engaged in relevant activities in the field of early childhood and children’s services. That includes any other relevant parts of the private and voluntary sector, beyond those early years providers referred to in subsection (4)(b), because securing the benefits of that mix of service provision is crucial to the success of children’s centres.
That is why we have reinforced that message in the children’s centres planning guidance, which was issued last year, and in the practice guidance, which was issued last week. We say that local authorities must work with the voluntary and professional bodies to plan and deliver children’s centres, and in particular they must be offered opportunities to participate in identifying local needs and developing plans to meet those needs. We stress that consultations must be held before decisions are taken about where centres should be based and what services they should provide.
We say also that local authorities should look to voluntary organisations, private companies and, in particular, social enterprise organisations not only to supply services, but to run and manage children’s centres. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be assured that the clause is widely drawn and encompasses the concerns and questions that he raised.
Amendment No. 193 would make local authorities take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement of young children not in the practice and services that they receive, on which the hon. Lady focused, but, in relation to this clause, in the planning of early childhood services.
We agree that early childhood services will be effective only if they engage not only parents, but children who use them. I am committed to that, and so are the Government. That includes listening to the views of children under five years old who use the service.
The clause would place a duty on local authorities to consult young children on the planning of services, because the words in the clause relate to the making and implementation of arrangements. I hope that the hon. Lady can appreciate that although she was talking about young children’s experience of the service delivery, there are practical difficulties in engaging that age group in meaningful, wide-ranging formal consultation about such questions as where children’s centres should be located.

Annette Brooke: I thought that it might be appropriate to insert listening to young children in that provision of the Bill, because the provision starts with  taking “all reasonable steps”. I agree with some of the Minister’s comments, but the caveat “reasonable steps” would not bring young children into some of the detailed physical arrangements the Minister might be talking about. I also concede that ethical considerations need to be taken on board when working with and listening to young children. Does the Minister think that
“must take all reasonable steps”
is the protective phrase, so that local authorities will not have a ridiculous duty placed on them?

Beverley Hughes: I think that the phrase “all reasonable steps” concerns the scope of the duty, which is quite broad. The key question is what is it a duty to do. It is a duty to consult on matters such as where children’s centres should be. Consultation should take place on the strategic planning for children’s centre service delivery. The hon. Lady spoke knowledgably about the valuable work that has been done by the voluntary sector, and mention has been made of the Children’s Society, Mencap and the National Children’s Bureau, the work of which was funded by the Government. We are very committed to that.
The hon. Lady knows that such work is based on consulting children about their settings—what they would like to eat and drink, when they can go outside and how their experience should be organised from day to day—to involve and empower them to express their views about those experiences. I can reassure her about the concerns she expressed regarding the involvement of children at that level. It is a specialist area and it is rather too early to deal with it in this Bill. However, the children’s centre practice guidance, which I hope she has had a chance to examine, places the emphasis on practitioners listening to and involving children in the discussion of how things are organised and their experience in those settings.
The Bill requires local authorities actively to encourage and facilitate the involvement of parents when planning the provision for an area. For practical reasons, such as the ability of children to take part in high-level decisions and discussions, it is not appropriate to extend the requirement in clause 3 to young children. With regard to the day-to-day experience of children, I assure the hon. Lady that the guidance on the way in which children’s centres must be run already places a great emphasis on the involvement of children and the responsibility of practitioners to listen to them. I hope that she feels that that is acceptable and rather more appropriate.

Stephen Hesford: May I encourage my right hon. Friend to maintain her position? She is right that under subsection (4)(c), those involved will be able to take account of children’s views. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is not listening. Will those involved be able to take children’s issues into account, as the Minister outlines?

Beverley Hughes: That is absolutely right. The process includes, of course, some of the most important people whom local authorities are required  to consult in the making of arrangements: the parents of very young children. I hope the hon. Lady accepts that it is much more appropriate that we involve children in the delivery of practice and that it would be neither appropriate nor straightforward for young children to be involved in planning matters or for the local authorities to consult formally that population about issues such as the siting of children’s centres.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister comment on whether it would be desirable to include a requirement to listen to young children? She argues, fairly convincingly, that this might not be the right place in the Bill, but surely it is not enough to hide it away in guidance if we want to send a message to the sector about spreading good practice.

Beverley Hughes: Such a requirement certainly will not be hidden away in the statutory guidance. There is an onus on us to try to make law that is feasible and reasonable. We are discussing decisions about where children’s centres would be best placed, who should manage them and which bodies apart from those listed in the Bill should be involved. It is not appropriate or feasible to expect local authorities to have a formal consultation with young children about such matters, as important as it is to push the boundaries further in involving young children in the issues that affect them on a daily basis.

Roger Williams: I do not believe that my hon. Friend is suggesting that local authorities consult everybody about everything, but it is appropriate, and helpful, to consult on some things. It would be useful to include that. I understand that the Children’s Commissioner for England considers it good practice to talk to children and consult them. As my hon. Friend said, this may not be the appropriate place, but laying emphasis on working with children and taking on board their views is important and would lead to better facilities for the whole community.

Beverley Hughes: On what is appropriate, I think that the hon. Gentleman agreed with me rather than with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. I am trying to make it clear that the clause is about strategic decisions on the number of children’s centres, their siting and who should manage them. I do not think that it is appropriate or feasible to expect children under five to take part meaningfully in such consultations. Therefore, it is unreasonable to apply such a duty to local authorities.
However, having made those decisions, further decisions such as what is happening inside the children’s centre, how practitioners interact, what facilities are available, how things should be organised and the day-to-day experience of young children under five are a completely different matter, and children should and will be involved in them.
Clause 3 is about high-level planning. I do not agree with the hon. Lady that it would be appropriate to put a duty on local authorities to involve children under five in such decisions.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for elaborating on what is in the Bill and in the explanatory notes. The Bill refers to consulting with providers in the private, voluntary and independent sectors only, but I am concerned about a host of other children’s groups that may not be providers. They produce literature and provide advice, support services to young parents and outreach services, but they do not themselves provide child care nursery places or other child care facilities. However, on what the Minister said, it is clear that all those bodies have a role, and that it would be unusual for local authorities not to want to consult them. This discussion has been useful in that it will reinforce that point for local authorities.
I shall allow the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole to speak to amendment No. 193 before I say what I intend to do with amendment No. 72.

Annette Brooke: I am disappointed by the Minister’s reply, as I should like the words “listening to young children” to be in the Bill. However, I listened carefully to her and I do not wish to press the amendment to a vote, as I want to look at the whole Bill to see whether there is a more appropriate place for it.
I respect the fact that the phrase is in the guidance, but this first Childcare Bill should contain the words “listening to young children”. However, I shall go through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb to see whether I can find a better place for the amendment.

Tim Loughton: On the basis of my earlier comments and having heard the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ann Coffey: I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister a question about subsection (4), which places a duty on local authorities to
“take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate”
parents, early years providers and so on
“in the making and implementation of arrangements”.
That will clearly give rise to tension, as I have experienced locally, when early years providers have felt that they have not been involved as much as they might have been in discussion about the role of the children’s centres. The position has much improved. I have received good feedback from the providers in my area, who now feel that they are being included, and the system is working well, but I can foresee areas of tension in future. How does my right hon. Friend think the provision will work if an early years provider or parent feels that they have not been properly consulted?

Beverley Hughes: I agree that local authorities should work closely with the private and the voluntary sector when developing children’s centres, as I made clear in my earlier response.
Our policy on the provision of child care in children’s centres has been set out in guidance. Local authorities must consider using private or voluntary provision where it is available. The guidance published last week says:
“Local authorities should avoid simply duplicating existing provision as they establish children centres. In line with the Childcare Bill, we will expect local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate for private or voluntary providers to deliver the service, before they do so themselves.”
My hon. Friend will have noticed that, under clause 8, local authorities will not be expected to provide child care unless it is appropriate for them to do so. Phase 2 of children’s centres—from 2006 to 2008—is about to begin. We have said that, where there is good local provision of child care, the children’s centre does not have to provide it.
My hon. Friend also asked what arrangements were in place to ensure that local authorities adhered to the guidance and used private and voluntary providers where possible. The current process increasingly involves children’s services advisers whom we have appointed under a director for children and learners in the Government offices. They will work closely with the local authorities for which they are responsible and look in detail at their plans to ensure that the guidance as we have expressed it is adhered to.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s account of the fact that in Stockport that arrangement already seems to be working well and that private and voluntary providers are happy that local authorities are working in the spirit of the policy. I am sure that that is the case elsewhere in the country. We have the mechanisms in place through those children’s services advisers to ensure that planning is appropriate and fully involves the private and voluntary sectors.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Duty of local authority and relevant partners to work together

Maria Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, leave out ‘are’ and insert ‘may be’.
It is a pleasure, Mr. Amess, to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, keeping us in good order. You are very sharp this morning, as we have already noticed. I did not have a chance to welcome you on Tuesday, although I thought about sending you a note.
Clause 4 enables local authorities and their partners to share their resources and to pool budgets, allowing them to deliver the fully integrated front-line services that we all agree have huge benefits for young children. That is in keeping with the existing operation of section 10 of the Children Act 2004, under which the arrangements for children’s trusts are made.
The amendment will allow funds pooled by a local authority and its partners to be spent in ways other than just on the functions of the authority and their relevant partners when they are jointly exercised. The current wording allows funds to be used only if they are spent on the functions of the authority and its partners which are jointly exercised. That is more prescriptive than we intended, so I bring the happy news that the amendment will correct a drafting error and allow the local authority and its partners more leeway to pool resources as fully as they decide is necessary. The amendment is permissive. It changes the power given to local authorities from a prescriptive one to a permissive one.
I hope that the Committee agrees that that will maximise flexibility so that local authorities and their partners can work together to achieve the ends that we have repeatedly said we want. I also hope that without too much ado I can persuade the Committee to agree to the amendment.

Tim Loughton: That was a long explanation for the addition of two words and the subtraction of one. The amendment seems amenable and we support it. Perhaps the Government will reciprocate on one of our amendments in future.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Power to amend sections 2 and 4

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton: The clause is short and I want to probe its meaning. I hate clauses such as this that give enormous powers to the Secretary of State to change his or her mind at a whim, but at least the clause is subject to an affirmative motion of the House, if I understand correctly the reference in clause 98, which refers specifically to clause 5. It takes a little working out.
Why would the Secretary of State want to change the definition of early childhood services? It is not one little part of what we are talking about; it is virtually all of it. Will the Minister give us some examples of why and in what circumstances she envisages the Secretary of State wanting to redefine the whole subject?
I hate such phrases as
“make such other amendments ... as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.”
Again, that seems to give the Secretary of State enormous powers. We have had long debates on the details, but we seem to be changing the assumptions on which those debates were based. Will the Minister give some examples of why the clause is necessary and what is likely to be achieved by it that is not out of keeping with the aims and objectives that we have already debated?

Justine Greening: I support what my hon. Friend said about this catch-all clause. In many respects, it could undermine the Bill that we are debating. Things could change dramatically.
I ask for clarification. The clause states that the Secretary of State may
“amend the definition of ‘early childhood services’”.
Does it mean only services, or could it be extended to the provision of goods and assets? We need clarification of what “services” means in this context.

Beverley Hughes: I shall preface my comments by saying that the first five clauses are important to the “Every Child Matters” programme. In practice, their combined effect is to give Sure Start services statutory underpinning, with statutory guidance explaining how the duties are to be achieved through the children’s centre way of working. It is important to appreciate that.
Clause 5 allows the Secretary of State to alter by order the definition of “early childhood services” in clause 2 and, if necessary, to make consequential changes to the relevant partners who have to work together under clause 4. We recognise the potential importance of such changes. Clause 98 therefore requires that any order made under clause 5 is made by affirmative resolution. That will allow Parliament a full opportunity to debate such changes.
Clause 2 defines “early childhood services” for the purposes of clause 3 and sets out how those services must be delivered. Those services must be integrated, they must reach out to excluded families and they must involve parents and providers. The clause focuses on those key services relating to young children, parents and prospective parents that are essential to delivering the Sure Start children’s centre model. The model is for parents, from the moment they know that they are expecting a baby; it will give them a coherent pattern of child health, integrated child care and education, family support services, some free at the point of delivery and some subsidised according to income. We are defining those services because research has shown that they are vital to improving outcomes, which is at the heart of part 1.
We obviously do not have any plans to use the power to make changes, but we recognise that we may need to amend, remove or add to the services to which the clauses apply. Having the power to do so will give us the flexibility to recognise and respond to the changing needs of families over time.
The hon. Gentleman asked for some examples. Changes may be needed for a variety of reasons: to reflect new policies, alterations in how services are configured, or legal changes. For example, emerging research or evidence of best practice might require us to refine or take a different approach to child care and early childhood services. We want to create a framework in which it is possible to respond, with appropriate safeguards through an affirmative procedure, to any emerging issues.

Justine Greening: One of my concerns is about the suggestion that there may be an opportunity for the Government to redefine early childhood services. Local authorities will be reticent about putting in the investment to provide them, in case suddenly at some point in the future—the Minister said that there are no plans at the moment—the goalposts are moved.
My concern is that the measure will hinder rather than help the provision and improvement of early childhood services, because there will be an uncertainty in the minds of local authorities, particularly given the concerns expressed in the original debate about the lack of additional funding to provide the services. It is a real concern, as local authorities will hold back to find out whether changes come forward in future months.

Beverley Hughes: I am not sure about the hon. Lady’s comments about additional funding. The massive new funding from this Government during the past seven years has marked a significant change from the situation before 1997. We have made a commitment to continue it, and that is why we are able to bring forward those proposals.
As I said, we do not envisage any changes, but it is right to allow for the framework that we are defining not to be massively changed, but to be refined in light of any emerging evidence. Given the Government’s history and commitment to this area, it is not our intention massively to change the framework.
Another example is that there might be changes in the organisation of Departments. Although we have specified in the Bill two other big public service organisations along with local authorities, we might need to refine that later to reflect other changes in departmental structures.
We may need to incorporate other pieces of legislation into the framework in the Bill. With emerging evidence and research about what is best practice for children, and departmental and legislative changes, it would be sensible for the Bill to include a facility that meant that those changes could be made flexibly but with the appropriate scrutiny of Parliament.
We accept the starting point of the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Putney (Justine Greening). We would not want to make changes unless they were absolutely necessary. Changes could be significant, and they should at least be debated and decided by Parliament. That is why we have proposed the affirmative procedure.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister remind the Committee about the Standing Orders for such a parliamentary debate, and how long each House of Parliament would have to debate the significant changes about which she talks?

Beverley Hughes: It is some time since I took part in such a debate, but from recollection I think that it takes an hour and a half. That is the convention, as I remember it. I am not sure about whether there is any flexibility; I am not a Committee Clerk.

Nick Gibb: I did not raise the point to test the Minister’s knowledge of Standing Orders, because I am sure that she is significantly more knowledgeable than I am about those issues, but to quiz her about whether she thinks the procedure allows a significant amount of time to debate the issue. We spent considerably more time than that debating clauses 1 to 4 on Tuesday. In all honesty, does she feel that that is sufficient time to debate significant changes to the purpose of the legislation?

Beverley Hughes: Those are really matters for the House, rather than for me. I am constrained by the rules of the House and the conventions in these matters. The decision that the hon. Gentleman has to make is not whether the time for a debate under the affirmative procedure is long enough, nor is it a matter of not being prepared to agree with the proposals if he feels that the time is not long enough. The decision is whether—given the pioneering legislation that hon. Members have been kind enough to acknowledge that we are making—it is sensible to have a provision with the proper safeguards to enable us to reflect further emerging knowledge in an area in which our understanding of what helps young children to develop has accelerated very much over recent years. Should we have a provision that enables us to continue to reflect any emerging evidence and changes in our legislation? I propose that we should.

Justine Greening: The Minister’s comments concern me. The original definition of early childhood services in clause 2 is very broad. It refers to what aspects of services will be brought together under a local authority and to the broad provision of services. The Minister’s comments suggest that potential changes in the future could be far more prescriptive and could be top-down changes from national Government. It concerns me that, although I am happy with things in their current form, in the future there could be a far more top-down, prescriptive approach to nursery and early childhood services provision in local areas, when what may be wanted is a far more flexible, grass-roots way of meeting needs. I thought that that was what the Bill was about.

Beverley Hughes: I appreciate that the hon. Lady has recently arrived in the House, but when we are making legislation, we must ensure that we do so in ways that reflect the law that is already in place. That is what the list in clause 2 does. Similarly, if there were any amendments, we would have to ensure that the changes were consistent with current or even—I made this point—emerging legislation that has not yet been passed, but which may be passed and which may be germane to the Bill. It seems only sensible to have a provision that, with the proper scrutiny, enables us to take future changes into account to ensure that they are incorporated in our aspirations for young children.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents

David Amess: A large number of amendments have been tabled, so there will not be an opportunity for a stand part debate. Hon. Members should bear that in mind and make their points as we discuss the amendments.

Ann Coffey: I am not sure whether this is a point of order, but most things in this place qualify as one. The document giving notice of the amendments is helpful because it gives the amendments in numerical order so that one can find them, but I cannot find the document that follows on from the one that I had on Tuesday, which ends with amendment No. 234. Am I totally confused?

Tim Loughton: It is on the Table.

Ann Coffey: Thank you very much.

David Amess: That was a point of order. If, when we adjourn at 10.25 am, the hon. Lady would kindly quietly have a word with the Clerk, he will be able to help her.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 279, in page 4, line 7, after ‘must’, insert ‘using all appropriate resources.’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 224, in page 4, line 7, leave out
‘, so far as is reasonably practicable,’.
Amendment No. 89, in page 4, line 8, after ‘of’, insert
‘good quality, accessible and affordable’.
Amendment No. 90, in page 4, line 8, after ‘is’, insert ‘, and remains,’.
Amendment No. 76, in page 4, line 13, at end insert
‘, or
(c)to assist with children with disabilities or other special needs.’.
Amendment No. 232, in page 4, line 13, at end insert
‘or,
(c)to sustain caring responsibilities.’.
Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 15, after ‘authority’, insert—
‘(aa)must actively monitor the demands from families to ensure that provision is responsive to their needs,’.
Amendment No. 230, in page 4, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
‘(a)must have regard to the needs of parents in their area—
(i)who are eligible for the childcare element of the working tax credit,
(ii)who are eligible for the maximum entitlement to the child tax credit,
(iii)for the provision of childcare which is suitable for disabled children, and
(iv)from black and minority ethnic communities’.
Amendment No. 79, in page 4, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Amendment No. 195, in page 4, line 20, at end insert—
‘(iii)the provision of a diverse range of childcare, and
(iv)the provision of childcare which is accessible to black and other minority ethnic groups.’.
Amendment No. 83, in page 4, line 22, at end insert
‘and to the affordability of such childcare’.
Amendment No. 84, in page 4, line 22, at end insert
‘and to the sustainability of such childcare’.
Amendment No. 99, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
‘(e)must have regard to existing childcare operated by private and voluntary independent providers.’.
Amendment No. 100, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
‘(f)must establish an appeals process for providers who wish to challenge the basis on which the provision of childcare is deemed to be sufficient in this section.’.
Amendment No. 125, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
‘(g)must have regard to the quality of any childcare provided.’.
Amendment No. 126, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
‘(h)must have regard to childcare provision for workless households, pursuant to its duties under section 1(1).’.
Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
‘(2A)In carrying out research to comply with subsection (2) above, local authorities shall ensure compliance with guidance provided by the Market Research Council and the British Polling Council.’.
Amendment No. 127, in page 4, line 24, at end insert
‘, which will set out the factors that local authorities may consider in assessing—
(i)whether local childcare provision is sufficient, and
(ii)what constitutes reasonably practicable steps.’.
Amendment No. 239, in page 4, line 33, leave out ‘16’ and insert ‘18’.
Amendment No. 80, in page 4, leave out lines 35 and 36.
New clause 9—Appeals mechanism—
‘An English local authority must establish an appeals mechanism to enable parents unable to access childcare under the terms set out in section 6 to require the local authority to reassess the sufficiency of the provision of sufficiency.’.
Amendment No. 249, in clause 22, page 11, line 6, after ‘of’, insert
‘good quality, accessible and affordable’.
Amendment No. 250, in page 11, line 6, after ‘is’, insert ‘and remains’.
Amendment No. 253, in page 11, line 11, at end insert
‘or
(c)to assist with children with disabilities or other special needs.’.
Amendment No. 254, in page 11, line 13, at end insert—
‘(aa)must actively monitor the demands from families to ensure that provision is responsible to their needs.’.
Amendment No. 255, in page 11, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Amendment No. 261, in page 11, line 22, at end insert—
‘(c)must have regard to existing childcare operated by private and voluntary independent providers.’.
Amendment No. 262, in page 11, line 22, at end insert—
‘(c)must establish an appeals process for providers who wish to challenge the basis on which the provision of childcare is deemed to be sufficient in this section.’.
Amendment No. 257, in page 11, line 22, at end insert—
‘(2A)In carrying out research to comply with subsection (2) above, local authorities shall ensure that relevant guidance provided by the Market Research Council and the British Polling Council is complied with.’.
Amendment No. 263, in page 11, leave out lines 35 and 36.
Amendment No. 200, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert—
‘(aa)an order under section 6,’.

Tim Loughton: Halfway through that diatribe I shouted “house”, but it went unnoticed. I had hoped, Mr. Amess, that in your announcement before the list of amendments you would say that the grouping was a complete nightmare and that you had decided to reorder the amendments. With the greatest respect to the Chair and the Clerk, it is not easy to deal with a group of amendments that includes no fewer than 30 amendments and a new clause, and which covers different clauses and different subjects. There is a great deal of commonality between some amendments—clearly, they should be grouped together—and some provisions that pertain to Wales mirror those that pertain to England, but many others are on a different subject. It would have been easier for the Committee if they had been separated out.

Annette Brooke: I concur with the hon. Gentleman. It will be difficult to structure the discussion, as five or even six major issues are contained in the group. I hope that we will be able to work together to facilitate the discussion.

David Amess: Order. I have heard what both hon. Members have said and will reflect on their points as we progress further in the Bill. However, I have no doubt at all that they will be able to cope more than adequately with the challenges that they face.

Tim Loughton: You spoil us, Mr. Ambassador, as they say. I will try to keep some semblance of order and go through the amendments as they appear on the list. I would like hon. Friends to elaborate on certain amendments, so I will deal in detail with some but leave the others for them. I shall just touch on some of the Liberal Democrat amendments, as I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will go into them in more detail.
Amendment No. 279 is not of particular import but just happens to come first in the group. There are others that I want concentrate on more. This probing amendment, which would insert the phrase “using all appropriate resources”, goes to the heart of the dilemma that we and the Local Government Association raised in respect of proper and sufficient funding of the provisions. The Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that, in her view, there were no unfunded commitments in the Bill. We do not agree. Given the complexity of new duties and structures that local authorities will be responsible for, and all the other competing obligations, duties and structures that they must undertake as a result of the Children and Adoption Bill, the 2004 Act and the  restructuring of children’s services departments, we have serious concerns about whether local authorities will manage with their available resources.

Justine Greening: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will be expensive to implement successfully in some areas? My constituency includes Southfields, which has been termed locally “nappy valley” because of the high proportion of families with young children. The Bill will have a huge effect on the local authority of Wandsworth.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Her constituency and that part of south-west London have transient populations. The demographics of particular areas must be considered. She is in an area that is growing younger. I represent Worthing, which used to be an area that was growing older. I am happy to say that it is now growing much younger as new developments and new families come in. It is difficult to ascertain, on the basis of long-term projections, whether local authorities will have sufficient resources. There is a question mark over the placing of a clear duty on a local authority that it “must secure”. The provision needs a rider; we have proposed “using all appropriate resources”.

Stephen Hesford: I know that the hon. Gentleman said that this is a probing amendment, but if it were taken at face value, would it not be a get-out clause for local authorities that do not do their duty? They could simply make up some story about not having enough money. I do not accept his opening gambit that the provisions are unfunded.

Tim Loughton: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but there are all sorts of other checks and balances concerning how the local authority accounts for itself that would make that difficult. We do not want to give local authorities an excuse for not doing something that they should be doing and that the Bill intends them to do.
However, by the same measure, representatives of local authorities and the Local Government Association would say that if they do not have the resources, various things will have to give. The LGA, for example, wants to highlight that
“without extra investment, meeting these duties will either result in making childcare even less affordable to parents, or place additional, and unacceptable, pressures on Council Tax bills.”
It is not an either/or option. If the resources are not there, it will not happen and, despite the best endeavours to institute every dotted “i” and crossed “t” of this Bill, it still may not happen because cost pressures have increased. That is particularly true in south-east England because demographic changes have meant that the constituency those measures are aimed at has increased in size all of a sudden.
Despite best endeavours, if the resources are not there, child care is either not going to happen or quality, affordability or various other factors are going to have to give. I want a rider so that local authorities  can say, “We’ve done everything that we were required to do and more, using all the appropriate resources we have at our disposal, but despite that, there may be some failings.” In such cases, the Government have to recognise that either those authorities are doing something badly and they need assistance to do it better or that their funding resources do not match up to their service obligations. That is the point of my amendment, and this is the only appropriate point at which the issue of funding can be addressed. It might be useful for the Committee to spend some time on it.
Amendment No. 224 deals with the phrase “reasonably practicable”. That is a big concern: what on earth is “reasonably practicable”? We need more finely honed definitions because that phrase could be more of an example of the sort of get-out clause mentioned by the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) than my proposed safeguard. However, I shall not steal the thunder of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole by going into detail about her amendment.
Amendment No. 89 is key because it goes to the heart of the issues of quality we were debating earlier. The amendment would add the proviso that child care should be good quality, accessible and affordable. We have said this before, but it is no good simply creating a lot of additional child care places for the sake of it if they are not very good places or they are not sustainable. In doing so, we might actually drive out some better quality ones. I cannot see how the Government can object to such helpful additions. The Minister mentioned that quality is important; we want “quality” included in the Bill rather more than it is.
Accessibility is key. It is no good setting up a structure if parents from certain backgrounds or areas cannot access it. It is one thing to be able to say that child care places exist, but if people cannot access them for a whole host of reasons, that is not much good to those who are missing out. Affordability is also key. There is nothing to say that local authorities have not achieved their responsibilities if they produce child care places that are beyond the pocket of an awful lot of people. Again, that would be entirely self-defeating, given what the Bill is trying to achieve.

Annette Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that it will be incredibly difficult to provide affordable, much-needed places for children with disabilities if the local authorities do not have additional resources for that purpose?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady raises a good point and perhaps we will discuss it in more detail in the context of some of the later amendments tabled by the Opposition, which deal with disability. That is a key area. Inevitably, child care places for children with disabilities or special educational needs will require more specialised provision, which will inevitably be more costly. Her point is quite right.
Amendment No. 90 relates to sufficiency. Again, we might need to question the term “sufficient”. Providing child care places is a dynamic process. We can all say that we know exactly how many children under the age of two—or whatever it might be—we have in our  constituency or in a local authority area now, but in nine months’ time that figure will have changed. Given the drastic changes in demographics and the birth rate that are starting to feed through, and given that many nurseries are being set up on what is usually a five-year funding plan, it is essential that the idea of sufficiency applies not to the present, but to the foreseeable future. Forward planning is needed because, otherwise, in a short space of time, what was sufficient turns out to be woefully inadequate or to constitute over-provision, in which case there are competitive pressures and various nurseries may go out of business.
The amendment is intended to be helpful. The addition of the words “and remains” makes it crystal clear to local authorities that they must plan with at least a five-year horizon in mind and that they must be able to convince people of the sufficiency of the provision not now, but over the next few years, as the plans are rolled out.
The next amendment—we are only one sixth of the way through—is amendment No. 76, which touches on the issue of disabilities, which the hon. Lady mentioned. Subsection (1) deals with the reasons why child care places should be provided. Clearly, one reason is to enable people—particularly mothers—who face pressures juggling child care with their jobs to go out to work or to remain in jobs if they choose to do so. Hon. Members should remember that one of the basic principles that we set out for scrutinising the Bill is that there should be no bar to the lifestyle chosen by parents, whether they choose to stay at home and look after their children, to take advantage of a publicly funded or voluntary independently funded nursery or to use the extended family. Parents should have that choice and they should not be financially penalised for their decision.
The second criterion relates to parents who wish to undertake education or training to achieve a job. That is perfectly fair, but a raft of people could lose out. I have in mind those parents who have children with disabilities, of which there are many. They require special attention. Child care places may not be required to enable the parents to go out and work but to give special assistance to young disabled children which a parent is not able to provide at home, or to give needed respite to parents who, in many cases, do a fantastic job in taking on a responsibility that would otherwise fall to the state at great cost by looking after their children and becoming semi-professional carers.
We know of the extra demands that disabled children, particularly severely disabled children, can place on parents. All too often, respite is not available, and I do not mean for odd weekends or weeks off. The intensity involved in looking after some disabled children might mean that parents need several hours when somebody else takes on responsibility for the child. That might be most appropriate in a nursery so that the child can have some interaction with other children which it would otherwise miss from being stuck at home because of the nature of his or her disabilities.
If there were an assurance for somebody who looks after a disabled child that they would be able to take several hours out a week while the child is cared for at a nursery place, it would make their lives much easier. We should do much more to make the job of carer easier and not put hurdles in the way. Carers save the state a considerable amount of money by, quite rightly, making their child their number one priority. We should give them more recognition.
The next amendment is amendment No. 232, which is on a similar theme but put in slightly more politically correct terms. I shall leave the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole to elaborate on it. Amendment No. 3 is, again, to do with the dynamics of child care provision.

Edward Miliband: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I will probably lose my place, but I shall give way.

Edward Miliband: I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s remarks closely. I am not sure whether coherence is important in opposition, not having been in opposition myself, but does he not think that there is a slight contradiction in his amendments? Some express concern about upward pressures on council tax but others want to widen substantially the groups covered by clause 6.

Tim Loughton: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Perhaps he did not follow some of the points that we made earlier because he was too attached to his Blackberry. I am alarmed if he is suggesting that we should not make special provision for disabled children, who inevitably cost more, simply because that might lead to an increase in council tax. We should make special provision for such people. There is nothing incoherent about our amendments in that respect. We are trying to recognise the special needs of a special group of people with disabilities. They require special attention.
On amendment No. 3, we seek to add an additional determination when working out the sufficiency of child care, and that is that the authority
“must actively monitor the demands from families to ensure that provision is responsive to their needs”.
As we discussed earlier, a local authority must be mindful of how things change. It could say that it has laid on places, that they are at a certain church hall, new Sure Start centre or wherever, and that it has done its job. However, if parents do not access the places because of problems with them, the local authority has not achieved what it is supposed to achieve according to the spirit of the Bill, although it might technically have achieved it in practice.
Amendment No. 230, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, deals with the eligibility criteria in subsection (2)(a). I will leave that to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole.
Amendment No. 79 relates to a subject that we raised on Second Reading and I should be grateful if the Minister would respond in more detail. Why should the provisions be limited to parents who are currently claiming the child care element of the child tax credit? A number of outside bodies have made representations on this point. The National Childminding Association, the Pre-school Learning Alliance, 4Children and the Daycare Trust have said that they recognise
“the benefits of good quality childcare for all children and particularly for children from workless households, who are more likely to be disadvantaged.”
They add:
“Research shows that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to receive the greatest benefit from high quality early years services.”
They think that there should be equal availability for people who are not claiming the tax credit for whatever reasons. There is no explicit mention of low incomes in the Bill. Local authorities need to have regard to the needs of low-income families who are working and low-income families who are not working. They should not be excluded from the Bill.

Helen Goodman: I am sympathetic to the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman is expressing. An example is the children of asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are not entitled to the working tax credit, because they are not allowed to work. However, will he clarify whether, as well as dealing with vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, his amendment would place a duty on the local authority to make provision for the most advantaged, by which I mean the children of extremely wealthy people, who do not claim tax credits because their incomes are above the necessary level?

Tim Loughton: We said at the outset that the problem of accessible child care is a problem for everybody, but it is a particular problem for disadvantaged families and those on low incomes. If the provision is tailored purely to those who happen to be claiming the child care element of the child tax credit, that will exclude many people who are not claiming it, but who are entitled to it, many non-working families, and better-off families. Some rationing or funnelling of provision could apply to such people. Clearly, people who are more able to afford independent child care need less help than others. I am most concerned about the many non-working families who would benefit from access to additional child care, but who do not qualify under the working tax credit. Many families on the minimum wage would simply not be able to afford the fees.

Ann Coffey: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s list. Is there any group of people that he plans to exclude, in the sense that the local authority will not have to provide child care for them?

Tim Loughton: I do not want to exclude anyone, but there should be an inclining scale involving preferences. Clearly, the authority’s policy should not  be based on how best to provide child care for people earning a substantial amount of money, who are best able to make their own arrangements. However, there are many people who fall between two stools. They might just be beyond certain qualification levels, but they might still find it difficult to find accessible and affordable child care and juggle their work practices and lifestyle. The way that the provision is phrased is too exclusive. We have tabled the amendments so that the Minister can define how those people who are excluded will be catered for.

Beverley Hughes: For the benefit of the Committee and the hon. Gentleman, I should like to ensure that he understands, as I am sure that he does, that with this duty we are talking not about excluding people from child care, but about defining sufficiency—on which the question about whether the local authority has fulfilled the duty should be assessed.
The duty does not exist at the moment, but since 1997, with Government help, local authorities have managed to improve dramatically the quality and quantity of child care, and it is accessible for many families. The provision before us is about defining how local authorities will be judged; it is not about excluding people from nor including people in child care.

Tim Loughton: The right hon. Lady is right, but many people who need to be helped will be excluded by the phrasing of the clause. Those people are from non-working families, or they are not claiming the child care element of child tax credit, for whatever reason. That is why the Government need to make their case more clearly about who will not be included.
Local authorities have a duty to all council tax payers and their children, so whether or not the Government judge how well child care provision has done in disadvantaged areas, they need to show how well child care provision has done across the board. The measure before us does not even encapsulate those most disadvantaged communities that we should like included.

Stephen Hesford: In my copy of the Bill, clause 6 is entitled:
“Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents.”
How will that include non-working parents?

Tim Loughton: The title needs to be changed, too.

Stephen Hesford: There is no amendment to that effect.

Edward Miliband: Good point.

Tim Loughton: That could well be a good point, and it would normally have been dealt with in a clause stand part debate, to which we are now not entitled. However, given that a new clause and 30 amendments to this clause have been tabled already, yet another amendment might have confused matters even further.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Wirral, West. However, I said that the amendment was a probing amendment; it was not an attempt to redefine the definitions in the Bill. Perhaps we shall  return to that point on Report, if the Minister is unable to convince us as to why there should be such an exclusive definition.
We are still not half way through this group of amendments.

Ian Cawsey: We are enjoying it, do not worry.

Tim Loughton: I am enjoying it greatly.
The next amendment is the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 195, which makes an important reference to provision for children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. It needs more of an outing during this aspect of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 return to my earlier definition of what sort of child care is needed. Amendment No. 83 states that the authority should  have regard to the affordability of such child care, and amendment No. 84, to the sustainability of such child care. I have mentioned several times how it is no good setting up new child care places on an unsustainable financial model. It will result in other good-quality child care places disappearing, and a net loss of child care places some years later because sustainability was not a significant element when the provision was planned.
Amendment No. 99 carries on that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) will talk about it in more detail.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past One o’clock.